Physiology gives the indication that their is no soul, only mind and brain. This mind being a process of the brain. However, once you step outside conventional wisdom that their is no soul when it comes to neuroscience then you start to see that the conventional wisdom may not be correct. Evidence for survival of bodily death and psi phenomena indicate strongly, that the view that mind is a process of the brain ignores any evidence to the contrary. This is a easy way to avoid the possible conclusion itself.

It is said by a large number of neuroscientists that mind is a process of the brain and that evidence has been dramatically increases more and more as time goes on. Especially in the advent of fmri's. The problem is their is obviously more than one way to look at the evidence accumulated. The materialist will say that the theory that mind is filter, received by the brain instead of produced by the brain can be shaved off. That the view that mind is produced by the brain is simpler way of looking at the very strong correlations of mind and brain. True it's simpler, but does it account for all phenomena. A good theory should not just account for what it can account for but should be able to cover all well attested phenomena.

If you assume that psi phenomena and survival evidence doesn't exist or is very weak then it's easy of course to accept that mind is produced by the brain. However if you accept the evidence for survival and psi [which has been shown to exist by conventional scientific standards] then the theory that mind is filter and received by the brain is the simplest theory to take. Now when a materialist admits that yes psi phenomena has been shown to exist by scientific standards, they will a lot of the time fall back by saying well "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. This is a complete cop out because first of all what would create such extraordinary evidence. Replicated repeatable results yes? apparently not, it seems that this statement keeps the skeptics safe to the point of when their is very strong evidence for survival and psi they come up with this statement.

So are materialists really looking for the truth here?. I would say they could be, if they could gives us what they mean by extraordinary evidence. After many decades and centuries it seems as though its becoming very apparent what they mean by it. Its a way to ignore and avoid opposing data that doesn't fit into their materialistic worldview. So where is the soul? well i would say by looking at the evidence from survival that it's in the body. When death happens the soul leaves the physical body and takes a life of its own. The soul is a duplicate of the physical body but made of different kind of energy and matter.

For an examle of a skeptic admitting that remote viewing has been shown to exist by the scientific method.

The problem with neuroscientists is that they have a very naive idea of the soul. They think if it exists, then it must be consciousness, but their experiments have shown that mind is merely an illusion of neuro-electrical activity, therefore no soul and no afterlife. My take is that neuroscience is right on many things, BUT still there are many phenomena like NDEs and OBEs which provide evidence of the contrary. The only logical implication is there has to be a golden path between neuroscience and the paranormal.

I suppose the corresponding question is "If there is a fixed entity called a 'self,' where is it?"

I'm still learning about these things, but I think Buddhism says that our mind is always changing and is more like a continuum of states rather than some fixed, solid thing which can always be labeled. I think the mind just continues on without the body. So no "soul" or extra metaphysical part is needed; all that is needed is the assumption that the mind can function independently of the body.

I believe that Hinduism believes in a fixed entity called an "atman" which is like a soul. Maybe if some Hindus join the board, they could explain their position.

The soul is in the non-physical plane of reality. Thus by defnition, it cannot be foundanywhere in the physical plane of reality. However, it's effects can be found, and thatthat effect is the substantiality you perceive. There is no such thing as substance inreality because it a process of flux, but this flux only ever gains form when it is underthe view of the soul. As the soul is not a physical thing to be examined, the only wayto know the soul is to experience it through pure experience.

The materialists are trying to look for the "soul" in the brain because they do not admitthat any non-physical plane exists. Unfortunately for them, one cannot deny the fact that non-physical things do indeed exist such as space, time, mind and consciousness. Thusthe materialist is simply in denial that there is more to life than the physical plane ofreality and thus will will forever be confronted by the hard problem of consciousness. Weare now in the process of rejecting materialism, simply because it cannont account for themost basic phenomena of reality: the undeniable life itself.

Jackal wrote:I suppose the corresponding question is "If there is a fixed entity called a 'self,' where is it?"

I'm still learning about these things, but I think Buddhism says that our mind is always changing and is more like a continuum of states rather than some fixed, solid thing which can always be labeled. I think the mind just continues on without the body. So no "soul" or extra metaphysical part is needed; all that is needed is the assumption that the mind can function independently of the body.

I believe that Hinduism believes in a fixed entity called an "atman" which is like a soul. Maybe if some Hindus join the board, they could explain their position.

The "Soul" of humankind has been referred to as many things, eastern "Occultism" (as it was once known) shedding a greater light to the concept in that the early Christian & Islamic military antics destroyed most if not all western parallels. Then again, if Alexander hadn't died when he did we might all be Buddhists...

A modern "Urban Legend" of sorts that is popular in New Age groups is that the human body looses roughly 12-20 ounces of weight at the instant of death and a dampness seems to form at the very top of the head... the very point where most NDE types claim to have exited the physical body and, interestingly, the same point where most who "Astral Travel" or participate in "Bi-Location" type work claim to exit & re-enter the body. This is likewise the physical point of the "Crown" Chakra and in certain Martial Arts techniques, a point where a very lethal blow can be made during those times of day when legend suggests that the soul is not present (the older belief being that the soul leaves the body at night in order to do work for us... it's an explanation to dreaming but not seen as the same as traditional dreams).

With all of this in mind we need to look at a few important western debates about the "seat of the soul" in that there exists a mixed opinion; Judaism and Islam both teach that the heart is the seat of the soul for it is where the altar of God resides within the body -- the body being the most sacred "temple" in which the divine exists. But Christianity chose to promote the idea that God/the soul resides in the Mind/Brain (head) in that all things come from the impetus of thought or, as Hermes taught; All is Mind; the Mind Creates All. The irony around this being found in some of the more "primitive" expressions of "tradition"... specifically how certain aboriginal groups have a tradition of eating both, the heart & brain of "the fallen" so as to preserve their spirit and allow them to live on; a practice that is closely related to some of the "deeper" tales of Vampirism... even Ann Rice exploited these points in her novels.

So there's obviously a wide breadth as to "the issue" but only one traditional view that becomes clear as you melt things down to the point of common denominator -- most all of these influential traditions teach of a "Higher Self" and once you discard all the clutter tossed in by the clergy, the idea of going within the self so as to find divinity and from there see how to express it outward in life. One of the more beautiful demonstrations of this being the images of Buddha that expand outward from one microcosm into the macrocosm, something the Russian Nesting Dolls likewise symbolism when done as religious iconography. So, in a word, the "soul" side of us is this extended sense of consciousness that somehow transverses time and space, returning to a state of carnal presence every century of so.

Is this something we can measure or weigh? Is there some means by which to prove its presence that's tangible?

Who knows... we've not been overly successful thus far. Outside of supposition and theory the idea is in a state of intellectual limbo presently, but that's where faith comes into play; our belief that man is a spiritual beast come to life that it may know a physical experience.

leo100 wrote:Physiology gives the indication that their is no soul, only mind and brain. This mind being a process of the brain. However, once you step outside conventional wisdom that their is no soul when it comes to neuroscience then you start to see that the conventional wisdom may not be correct. Evidence for survival of bodily death and psi phenomena indicate strongly, that the view that mind is a process of the brain ignores any evidence to the contrary. This is a easy way to avoid the possible conclusion itself.

It is said by a large number of neuroscientists that mind is a process of the brain and that evidence has been dramatically increases more and more as time goes on. Especially in the advent of fmri's. The problem is their is obviously more than one way to look at the evidence accumulated. The materialist will say that the theory that mind is filter, received by the brain instead of produced by the brain can be shaved off. That the view that mind is produced by the brain is simpler way of looking at the very strong correlations of mind and brain.True it's simpler, but does it account for all phenomena. A good theory should not just account for what it can account for but should be able to cover all well attested phenomena.

The mind is what the brain creates. That is the least complicated explanationWhat well attested non psi phenomena does it not account for ?

leo100 wrote:If you assume that psi phenomena and survival evidence doesn't exist or is very weak then it's easy of course to accept that mind is produced by the brain. However if you accept the evidence for survival and psi [which has been shown to exist by conventional scientific standards] then the theory that mind is filter and received by the brain is the simplest theory to take. Now when a materialist admits that yes psi phenomena has been shown to exist by scientific standards, they will a lot of the time fall back by saying well "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. This is a complete cop out because first of all what would create such extraordinary evidence. Replicated repeatable results yes? apparently not, it seems that this statement keeps the skeptics safe to the point of when their is very strong evidence for survival and psi they come up with this statement.

There is no assumption that evidence for PSI is weak. It is weak. Now point to a clear well validated and corroborated anything psi. Contrary to what you believe is true there's not one psi thing that stands up to conventional scientific standards. Replicated results are not extraordinary and those are the standards of conventional scientific methods. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence What this means is very simple to understand. It means if you say that such and such is true the evidence must be compelling even clear cut by those within the field of their expertise. The average Joe or Jane is not an expert.

leo100 wrote:So are materialists really looking for the truth here?. I would say they could be, if they could gives us what they mean by extraordinary evidence. After many decades and centuries it seems as though its becoming very apparent what they mean by it. Its a way to ignore and avoid opposing data that doesn't fit into their materialistic worldview. So where is the soul? well i would say by looking at the evidence from survival that it's in the body. When death happens the soul leaves the physical body and takes a life of its own. The soul is a duplicate of the physical body but made of different kind of energy and matter.

For an examle of a skeptic admitting that remote viewing has been shown to exist by the scientific method.

To the embolden sentence can you provide compelling evidence this is true. Sounds more like a belief to me.

Subversivethinking has slightly misquoted Wiseman and certainly misunderstood what Wiseman said. Doing a keyword search will bear out what Wiseman meant it's something you should have done instead of getting a secondhand misunderstanding.

Btw this post of yours is a good example of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence non of which you've provided.

Btw this post of yours is a good example of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence non of which you've provided.

Nah, this is a fallacy. How do you define what an an "extraordinary claim" is? If there is no systematic or logical way of determiningwhat an extraordinary claim is, then it clearly is just belief or sentiment. Science does not work like that, rather science works by collectingdata and then trying to best explain that data. If an explanation appeals to something which goes against our current worldview, then ratherthan finding ways to explain the explanation away, we should have the honesty to accept the explanation. The fact is simple that studies intoPSI simply cannot be explained by materialism, so we have to appeal to new worldviews. In this case paranormal worldviews.

The mind is what the brain creates. That is the least complicated explanation

How do you know this? In fact it is the most illogical explanation, because what you are saying issomething physical is evolving into something non-physical. How does that work, care to explain?

However, it's effects can be found, and that that effect is the substantiality you perceive.

Can you offer any evidence for this?

There is no such thing as substance in reality because it a process of flux, but this flux only ever gains form when it is under the view of the soul. As the soul is not a physical thing to be examined, the only way to know the soul is to experience it through pure experience.

More word salad.

We are now in the process of rejecting materialism, simply because it cannont account for the most basic phenomena of reality: the undeniable life itself.

Who is we? Can you give a reference or state where you get this notion from?

Btw this post of yours is a good example of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence non of which you've provided.

Nah, this is a fallacy. How do you define what an an "extraordinary claim" is? If there is no systematic or logical way of determiningwhat an extraordinary claim is, then it clearly is just belief or sentiment. Science does not work like that, rather science works by collectingdata and then trying to best explain that data. If an explanation appeals to something which goes against our current worldview, then ratherthan finding ways to explain the explanation away, we should have the honesty to accept the explanation. The fact is simple that studies intoPSI simply cannot be explained by materialism, so we have to appeal to new worldviews. In this case paranormal worldviews.

The mind is what the brain creates. That is the least complicated explanation

How do you know this? In fact it is the most illogical explanation, because what you are saying issomething physical is evolving into something non-physical. How does that work, care to explain?

I considered the affects of head trauma and how that can't temporarily and at times permanently change at persons ability to process information even change their personalities in some cases creating a different person from what they were before. I also include surgical procedures like lobotomy. Even disease like dementia. That certainly can change a person. Anyone that has had first hand experience with someone that has gone trough a brain altering event knows that that person does not have the same mind as before the event. In short damage the brain can change the mind.It's the least complicated explanation because it does not have to invoke paranormal explanations.

indigogirl you just don't understand what an extraordinary claim is. Newton, Einstein had an extraordinary claims. As a matter of fact they were paradigm shifts in understanding how nature works. The first proof of relativity wasn't had until 1919, well after Einsteins theory of relativity was published in 1905. Proofs were found unlike PSI.

then ratherthan finding ways to explain the explanation away, we should have the honesty to accept the explanation.

No one is explaining explanations away unless you lump your belief into it. Don't you see that you and the OP are the ones refusing to accept the mundane explanation in favor of a preferred paranormal one.

I think the real crux of the argument is your camp you all don't like the idea that life right now is as good as it will ever get. I think that grates to the very core of your being. That's why you don't like the materialist point of view. Am I off the mark ?

I'd like to point out something else that both you and the OP seem to be short sighted on. That is you and the people in your camp have had thousands upon thousands of years to find evidence to show something which is overwhelmingly compelling. You have failed to do that at this moment in time. I don't know why that is not obvious to you.

I considered the affects of head trauma and how that can't temporarily and at times permanently change at persons ability to process information even change their personalities in some cases creating a different person from what they were before. I also include surgical procedures like lobotomy. Even disease like dementia. That certainly can change a person. Anyone that has had first hand experience with someone that has gone trough a brain altering event knows that that person does not have the same mind as before the event. In short damage the brain can change the mind.It's the least complicated explanation because it does not have to invoke paranormal explanations.

All that you have stablished here is that changes of brain states will cause changes of the conscious experience you are having.This simply proves that there are brain state correlates to mental states, it does not prove that the brain is causing consciousness.Moreover, the directionality is NOT one way one either, because mental states can have effects on brain states and physical states.What you are describing is known as the soft and easy problem of consciousness in neuroscience. Yes, we we know there are correlations,but what we do not know is how the brain could cause consciousness. This is known as the hard problem(I mentioned earlier)Untill, you cannot prove how the brain can produce conscious experience, or in other words a physical thing can evolve a non physical thing,you cannot state certainly that the brain is causing mind. So tell me how does something physical evolve into something non-physical?

indigogirl you just don't understand what an extraordinary claim is. Newton, Einstein had an extraordinary claims. As a matter of fact they were paradigm shifts in understanding how nature works. The first proof of relativity wasn't had until 1919, well after Einsteins theory of relativity was published in 1905. Proofs were found unlike PSI.

I would appreciate you call me by my name, otherwise I will construe it as an insult. The main problem in your post is the word “proof”If Newton actually gave proof, then why is his theory now known to be wrong today? So clearly proof in the context you are using is not infallible, so it is an improper word to use. At best you can say that Newton/Einstein gave evidence for their theory, not proof.

In other words as long as one gives evidence for their theories it is valid. In that case the works of countless parapsychologists for the theoryof PSI is valid because they do indeed give evidence.

The main criteria therefore for science if giving evidence to support ones theory. There is none of this making arbitrary distinctions on what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. That is not science, that is politics.

I think the real crux of the argument is your camp you all don't like the idea that life right now is as good as it will ever get. I think that grates to the very core of your being. That's why you don't like the materialist point of view. Am I off the mark ?

You do realise that I can counter this by saying that your resistance to non-material/paranormal explanations is because of your fear that there really is a higher spiritual power that will judge you after you pass over, or that it really is possible that some people have spiritual powers and you are jealous because you don’t have any or you don't want to believe there is a purpose to life, so you can do whatever you want. What is the point of making such allegations? They get us nowhere. Stick to the discussion of points.

I'd like to point out something else that both you and the OP seem to be short sighted on. That is you and the people in your camp have had thousands upon thousands of years to find evidence to show something which is overwhelmingly compelling. You have failed to do that at this moment in time. I don't know why that is not obvious to you.[/color]

What are you talking about? There has been loads of evidence for paranormal phenomena since the beginning of time. It is widely documented in ancient texts. It is widely documented in modern scientific literature. There is a vast database of such studies you can access on the Institute of Noetics sciences. I have had many personal experiences myself.

So your statement is simply false that there is no evidence, and made in ignorance of the literature and the personal experiences of those who have had them.

Last edited by Indigo Child on 01 Jun 2010, 07:37, edited 1 time in total.

We are now in the process of rejecting materialism, simply because it cannont account for the most basic phenomena of reality: the undeniable life itself.

Who is we? Can you give a reference or state where you get this notion from?[/quote]

Both of your questions will be answered by educating yourself on the new physics of the 20th century: quantum physics. I am afraid, as I saidpreviously, your knowledge of science is outdated, harking to the times of Newton. Materialism has been dead for more than 80 years now.Just a read one of those idiots guide to quantum physics or something

The important points you need to know is that there is no such thing as substance in quantum physics, because matter is constantly in flux,fluctuating in and out of existence and exists only as waves of possibility. Thus there is no substance in matter, it only appears when you perceive it.A bit like a hologram which is merely an inference pattern, but it only gains form when you shine a laser on it. Likewise, what you callphysical reality is holographic, it only gains form when you look at it. This has been proven in the famous double slit experiment where a waveonly becomes a particle when it is observed. That is what quantum physics says - in a nut shell: no reality without observer.

I considered the affects of head trauma and how that can't temporarily and at times permanently change at persons ability to process information even change their personalities in some cases creating a different person from what they were before. I also include surgical procedures like lobotomy. Even disease like dementia. That certainly can change a person. Anyone that has had first hand experience with someone that has gone trough a brain altering event knows that that person does not have the same mind as before the event. In short damage the brain can change the mind.It's the least complicated explanation because it does not have to invoke paranormal explanations.

Indigo Child wrote:All that you have stablished here is that changes of brain states will cause changes of the conscious experience you are having.This simply proves that there are brain state correlates to mental states, it does not prove that the brain is causing consciousness.Moreover, the directionality is NOT one way one either, because mental states can have effects on brain states and physical states.What you are describing is known as the soft and easy problem of consciousness in neuroscience. Yes, we we know there are correlations,but what we do not know is how the brain could cause consciousness. This is known as the hard problem(I mentioned earlier)Untill, you cannot prove how the brain can produce conscious experience, or in other words a physical thing can evolve a non physical thing,you cannot state certainly that the brain is causing mind. So tell me how does something physical evolve into something non-physical?

I don't know how the illusionist saws the lady in half, but not knowing does not cause me have to presume there's a magical explanation and for that reason I most certainly can state the brain and the mind are one. It's the parsimonious position. You've provided nothing to change anyone's mind; certainly not mine.

you just don't understand what an extraordinary claim is. Newton, Einstein had an extraordinary claims. As a matter of fact they were paradigm shifts in understanding how nature works. The first proof of relativity wasn't had until 1919, well after Einsteins theory of relativity was published in 1905. Proofs were found unlike PSI.

Indigo Child wrote:I would appreciate you call me by my name, otherwise I will construe it as an insult. The main problem in your post is the word “proof”If Newton actually gave proof, then why is his theory now known to be wrong today? So clearly proof in the context you are using is not infallible, so it is an improper word to use. At best you can say that Newton/Einstein gave evidence for their theory, not proof

For the classical world of everyday experience Newtons laws still work and are still used. How do you think we plot orbits and trajectories to other celestial bodies ? Einstein expanded upon Newtons work and provided a deeper understanding for how this universe works. Newton was not discarded. You didn't realize that did you ?

Indigo Child wrote:In other words as long as one gives evidence for their theories it is valid. In that case the works of countless parapsychologists for the theoryof PSI is valid because they do indeed give evidence.

I hope you are not using theory in the common usage (vernacular). Assuming you are not name one theory just one that explains one aspect of paranormal phenomena. The theory must meet this definition In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms.[/color]

Indigo Child wrote:The main criteria therefore for science if giving evidence to support ones theory. There is none of this making arbitrary distinctions on what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. That is not science, that is politics.

If you say you can bend metal just by thinking.If you say you can read someones mind.If you say you can see into the future.If you say you can astrally project.These are examples of extraordinary claims. But I still doubt you understand the differences .

I think the real crux of the argument is your camp you all don't like the idea that life right now is as good as it will ever get. I think that grates to the very core of your being. That's why you don't like the materialist point of view. Am I off the mark ?

Indigo Child wrote:You do realise that I can counter this by saying that your resistance to non-material/paranormal explanations is because of your fear that there really is a higher spiritual power that will judge you after you pass over, or that it really is possible that some people have spiritual powers and you are jealous because you don’t have any or you don't want to believe there is a purpose to life, so you can do whatever you want. What is the point of making such allegations? They get us nowhere. Stick to the discussion of points.

I fear nothing. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. However, if you are wrong you have far more to lose don't you ? We'll get somewhere if you start to realize that the ways look at things hasn't worked at all in providing facts hypothesis or theories.

I'd like to point out something else that both you and the OP seem to be short sighted on. That is you and the people in your camp have had thousands upon thousands of years to find evidence to show something which is overwhelmingly compelling. You have failed to do that at this moment in time. I don't know why that is not obvious to you.[/color]

Indigo Child wrote:What are you talking about? There has been loads of evidence for paranormal phenomena since the beginning of time. It is widely documented in ancient texts. It is widely documented in modern scientific literature. There is a vast database of such studies you can access on the Institute of Noetics sciences. I have had many personal experiences myself.

A hollow allegation. Personal experiences so what so have I. I'd bet you didn't suspect I did.

Indigo Child wrote:So your statement is simply false that there is no evidence, and made in ignorance of the literature and the personal experiences of those who have had them.

Personal experiences are not proof. They are perhaps beacons which call for a closer look. The plural of anecdotes is not evidence.

We are now in the process of rejecting materialism, simply because it cannont account for the most basic phenomena of reality: the undeniable life itself.

Who is we? Can you give a reference or state where you get this notion from?

Both of your questions will be answered by educating yourself on the new physics of the 20th century: quantum physics. I am afraid, as I saidpreviously, your knowledge of science is outdated, harking to the times of Newton. Materialism has been dead for more than 80 years now.Just a read one of those idiots guide to quantum physics or something

The important points you need to know is that there is no such thing as substance in quantum physics, because matter is constantly in flux,fluctuating in and out of existence and exists only as waves of possibility. Thus there is no substance in matter, it only appears when you perceive it.A bit like a hologram which is merely an inference pattern, but it only gains form when you shine a laser on it. Likewise, what you callphysical reality is holographic, it only gains form when you look at it. This has been proven in the famous double slit experiment where a waveonly becomes a particle when it is observed. That is what quantum physics says - in a nut shell: no reality without observer.[/quote]

I really wish New Agers had a better understanding of QM. For some reason that escapes me they seem to think QM provides an explanation for paranormal stuff.